MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102402338 · doi:10.1080/19425120.2012.683235

The Residence Time of Juvenile Fraser River Sockeye Salmon in the Strait of Georgia

2012· article· en· W2102402338 on OpenAlexaff
David Preikshot, Richard J. Beamish, R. M. Sweeting, C. M. Neville, Terry D. Beacham

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine and Coastal Fisheries · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenileOncorhynchusFisheryResidenceGeographyHabitatPopulationResidence time (fluid dynamics)Environmental scienceOceanographyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyDemographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mortality in the early marine period in a particular habitat is related to the severity of the factors causing mortality and the time that juvenile Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. spend in the habitat. Juvenile sockeye salmon O. nerka produced in the Fraser River rear in the Strait of Georgia immediately upon leaving freshwater. We used catches from trawl and purse seine surveys to develop two estimates of their average residence time in the Strait of Georgia and present a third estimate which pertains to Chilko Lake smolts in particular. The average time between the entry of the last 1% of juvenile sockeye salmon into the Strait of Georgia and the departure of the last juveniles was 54 d. The average time between the point when the maximum number of juvenile sockeye salmon entered the Strait of Georgia and the point when the maximum abundance in the strait occurred was 43 d. Individuals from the Chilko Lake population were shown to spend a minimum of 31–43 d in the Strait of Georgia, indicating that an average residence time of about 43–54 d is plausible. Received October 7, 2011; accepted April 3, 2012

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine and Coastal FisheriesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207